The Brustle and Eli Lilly cases: Creation--God or humankind?

Abstract

and reading this together with the subsequent amendments to the Constitution on human rights and laws that acknowledged the right to religious freedom. She found that the mention of only six recognized religions in the Elucidation to the Blasphemy Law discriminated against aliran (mystical beliefs). She also implied that the Blasphemy Law amounted to state interference in religion, although she did not discuss the specific parameters of the grounds for limitations on the right to religious freedom. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the Blasphemy Case has ongoing relevance and implications for public debates in Indonesia. The affirmation of the constitutional validity of the Blasphemy Law means that individuals may still be prosecuted for the offence of blasphemy, and the State may also issue an official legal warning to religious groups that have ‘deviated’ from the teachings of a religion. More broadly, this case appears to have re-energized efforts by the legislature to promulgate a Draft Law on Inter-religious Harmony that would include reformulated provisions on blasphemy. Civil society groups are (at the time this article was written) preparing an alternative draft law that would place greater emphasis on the protection of the religious freedom for all individuals regardless of their religion or belief, or lack of belief, although it will retain some form of offence of blasphemy. Like the global debates over the place of a blasphemy law or religious vilification law, the appropriateness and content of the criminal offence of blasphemy in Indonesia is likely to remain the source of public debate for some time to come.